I think I've been doing Weaver "wrong" but with jin (as I understand it) and shooting just fine.

In a "real" gun fight mental conditioning and clamness under stress are way more important than stance or technique. Being adaptable and firing from cover often obviate many technical elements.

Given that the vast majority of LEO shootings take place at very close range the cirical elements of situational awareness (to 'get the drop'), mental clarity and calmness along with dumb luck offer the dominant factors well before technical items even come to the table.

The very few times I faced a firearm it was over before there was anytime to think. Over even before any shots could be fired.

More to the point I don't think jin can be infered from the outward appearence of the stance but instead from the intent of the shooter.

JangChoe

01-03-2011, 12:02 PM

I think the stance is mostly used for competitive shooting. In seeing videos of various IPSC, IDPA matches, I see a lot of isosceles stances.

I think I've been doing Weaver "wrong" but with jin (as I understand it) and shooting just fine.

In a "real" gun fight mental conditioning and clamness under stress are way more important than stance or technique. Being adaptable and firing from cover often obviate many technical elements.

Given that the vast majority of LEO shootings take place at very close range the cirical elements of situational awareness (to 'get the drop'), mental clarity and calmness along with dumb luck offer the dominant factors well before technical items even come to the table.

The very few times I faced a firearm it was over before there was anytime to think. Over even before any shots could be fired.

More to the point I don't think jin can be infered from the outward appearence of the stance but instead from the intent of the shooter.

Alex Lee

01-03-2011, 02:29 PM

As Jang mentioned. The article clearly states that they were talking about target match situations.

Quite interesting that when he switches to iso stance his shooting got better. Even though hes been a weaver stance shooter for years, practices martial arts AND been told by other martial artist that weaver is the most stable.... hmmm...

Iso stance must rely on some type of grounding or jin type force. You do not have a supporting leg that can absorb the recoil of a gun.

I have a terrible time putting my thoughts on paper so I'll post some visual reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVS55Z2O9nc
His feet is parallel to the target. Meaning he doesnt have a "back brace" leg to resist the recoil. Notice that he's even leaning back while shooting. Which means he doesn't even have skeletal structure to resist the recoil. For those on the qijin list this is sorta like Forrest's stupid jin trick video where he push someone "off balance" (drunken boxingish part).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHI8LkFsIyY&feature=related
Not as good but more extreme version. .50 AE recoil is quite strong. Yet this guy who is not very strong looking fires double tap on one leg and maintains his balance. Yes his shoulder moves back a bit, but its quite understandable considering his conditioning. Most folks would have fallen backwards on the first shot.

Heck I see more grounding and jin in these videos then in some "internal" arts videos on you tube... ;)

David Orange

01-03-2011, 05:22 PM

Heck I see more grounding and jin in these videos then in some "internal" arts videos on you tube... ;)

I think you could find a similar thing in a lot of people who do certain types of work. But isn't this a one-directional skill? I wouldn't think it would enable them to ground a push from the rear, for instance, though they might be able to shoot toward the rear and balance the force.

Thanks.

David

Thomas Campbell

01-03-2011, 07:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVS55Z2O9nc
His feet is parallel to the target. Meaning he doesnt have a "back brace" leg to resist the recoil. Notice that he's even leaning back while shooting. Which means he doesn't even have skeletal structure to resist the recoil.

The guy who put up the clip calls it the "lazy" iso stance because of the leaning. :D

JangChoe

01-03-2011, 08:43 PM

The guy who put up the clip calls it the "lazy" iso stance because of the leaning. :D

Yeah a lean back in shooting is just a bad stance. A lot of beginners seem to want to lean back when to shoot for some reason. It's better to shift forward to your yong quan point and not lean back.

Anyway, that dude was shooting a FNP 9, which is only a 9mm shot through a full sized pistol. There wouldn't be much recoil in that. He could've held it with one arm, be totally out of alignment, and could still handle the recoil. His accuracy would suck though.

I actually have an old video of me shooting a .45 pistol on facebook. I had that stupid leaned back stance. I sure didn't have jin, but even with the .45, I could handle that recoil in my crappy, leaned-back isosceles stance. Nori shot next to me in the same video. She had a much better isosceles stance and handled the recoil much better. :) (but she was shooting a 9mm).

Rob Watson

01-04-2011, 09:51 AM

I think the stance is mostly used for competitive shooting. In seeing videos of various IPSC, IDPA matches, I see a lot of isosceles stances.

As Jang mentioned. The article clearly states that they were talking about target match situations.

I acknolwedge my reading comprehension could use some bolstering but the author, to my reading, of the article clearly presenting the proposition that the iso stance needs to come out of sport experience into the 'combat' arena. If he is really interested in good shooting under duress I suggest adding duress and distractions to the shooting course - like extremely loud music, folks shooting back with BB/paintballs, etc and folks whacking the shooter about the head and neck with shinai or stiffened pool noodles. A seasoned DI screaming 'constructive criticism' loudly in ones ear at the same time seems not too bad either.

If anyone claims to be able to see jin and suit then my BS meter goes offscale. Since the SJT were mentioned I offer that if one is well schooled in the qijin then one can easily perform SJT but just becasue one can do a few SJT does not mean one is using jin, suit or qijin stuffs.IHTBF anyone?

Thomas Campbell

01-04-2011, 11:32 AM

I actually have an old video of me shooting a .45 pistol on facebook. I had that stupid leaned back stance. I sure didn't have jin, but even with the .45, I could handle that recoil in my crappy, leaned-back isosceles stance.

The Wing Chun icon Yip Man is not in an isosceles stance, but the "lean" in some Wing Chun stances seems to be another example of "finding jin in the weirdest places":

I think you could find a similar thing in a lot of people who do certain types of work. But isn't this a one-directional skill? I wouldn't think it would enable them to ground a push from the rear, for instance, though they might be able to shoot toward the rear and balance the force.

Thanks.

David

Yep you are right it is one-directional. Its not like I'm expecting 6 direction from some average joe. But its amazing that an average joe who most likely has no martial arts practice ended up using a stance thats very similar to a correct jin stance.

But it would not surprise me if you told him to shoot backwards from that stance, they'll be able to figure out how in few tries.

This stuff is very very basic and crude jin like things. But its interesting to see them out of a martial arts context. For those folks that have jin this is like telling people the sun rises every morning. But for those you dont it can be use as another way to look at the jin or grounding forces.

InternalPowerSac

01-18-2011, 09:22 AM

You inspired this blog post Alex, thanks for making me think some more about my own experience.